- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 17,719
- Reaction score
- 13,362
Well, I think Bloom has a very strong thesis that would argue heavily in favor of Shakespeare's profundity. But why limit the question to the English-speaking world? That Bloom expresses his thesis in such terms sort of concedes my point in part.I don't think you can meaningfully purport to separate Shakespeare's craft and his 'substance'. I also don't know what would constitute an 'objective' opinion of Shakespeare that doesn't consider his skill with language. Hoping to vivisect art to get at the point of the art is a mug's game. It is trivially true that you need a certain faculty with English to properly appreciate Shakespeare, but how Shakespeare expressed himself is part of the substance. I'm thinking a bit about what Eliot talks about in "Tradition and the Individual Talent" (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69400/tradition-and-the-individual-talent).
Also, Harold Bloom basically argued that Shakespeare 'invented' humanity as we now understand it in the English-speaking world, which is a pretty significant accomplishment, if you accept the thesis:
https://www.district205.net/cms/lib...he-invention-of-the-human-harold-bloompdf.pdf
To be clear, I'm not arguing that art and substance should be separated, I'm just speaking to Jack's question of understanding of the human condition and arguing that-- for an English speaker-- it is difficult to make an objective judgment on the relative profundity of, let's say Shakespeare versus Dante or Dostoyevsky.
Our minds are simply too colored by Shakespeare's absolute mastery of our native language.
Last edited: